Contribución al estudio de la distribución geográfica de ...gredos.usal.es/.../1/Contribucion_al_estudio_de_la_distribuci.pdf · Contribución al estudio de la distribución geográfica

© Universidad de Salamanca Zephyrus, LXXVII, enero-junio 2016, 193-205

ISSN: 0514-7336DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14201/zephyrus201677193205

CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PYRENEAN FUNERARY STONE CIRCLES (BARATZE, CROMLECH) IN THE WESTERN PYRENEES

Contribución al estudio de la distribución geográfica de los círculos funerarios de piedra (baratze, crómlech) en los Pirineos occidentales

Jose Miguel Edeso Fito*, Idoia Goikoetxea Zabaleta**, Ane Lopetegi Galarraga*, Erik Arévalo Muñoz***, Íñigo Orue***, Luis Mari Zaldua**** y Jose Antonio Mujika Alustiza***

* Escuela Universitaria de Ingeniería, upv-ehu. C/ Nieves Cano, 12. 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz. Correo-e: [email protected]; [email protected]** Laboratorio de Antropología. Dpto. de Medicina Legal, Toxicología y Antropología Física. Facultad de Medicina. Avda. Madrid, 11. 18071 Granada***Facultad de Letras, upv-ehu. C/ Tomás y Valiente, s/n. 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz. Correo-e: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]****Comisión de Onomástica de Euskaltzaindia. Correo-e: [email protected]

Recepción: 26/01/2016; Revisión: 6/02/2016; Aceptación: 24/03/2016

Abstract: ‘Baratze’ or Pyrenean funerary stone circles, also known as Pyrenean cromlech, are funerary cre-mation monuments constructed between the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Roman period. These monuments consist of small circles, which consist of isolated standing stone blocks that enclose a central fu-nerary deposit. The densest geographical distribution of Pyrenean funerary stone circles is located east of the Leizaran river and the lower basin of the Oria river up to approximately Andorra. Pyrenean cromlechs are located across mountain chains and occasionally share space with other funerary monuments constructed between the Middle Neolithic period and the Bronze Age –dolmens and cists–, whereas in other locations, cromlechs appear to be established in previously unoccupied mountain zones in an approximately continuous fashion by groups of farmers. The discovery of some Pyrenean circles in Ondarre and Beaskin (Sierra de Aralar), away from the nuclear zone and in a space continuously exploited since the Neolithic period, as indicated by the presence of other funerary monuments –dolmens and cists–, generates new questions regarding their distribution and the reasons for distinct densities of these rituals in some areas of the nuclear zone. Therefore, we propose different explanatory hypotheses, adapted to the distinct circumstances, as lithology, history, etc.

Key words: Cromlech-stone circle; Aralar; Late Bronze Age; Iron Age; incineration; distribution.

Resumen: Los baratze o círculos funerarios pirenaicos, también conocidos como crómlech pirenaicos, son monumentos funerarios de incineración construidos a partir del Bronce Final hasta inicios de la época romana. Consisten en círculos de reducidas dimensiones conformados por bloques aislados que encierran en su zona central el depósito funerario. Su distribución geográfica más densa se localiza al este de los ríos Leizaran y de la cuenca baja del río Oria hasta aproximadamente Andorra. Se ubican en cordales de montaña en ocasiones compartiendo el mismo espacio que otros monumentos funerarios de inhumación construidos desde el Neolítico Medio a la Edad del Bronce –dólmenes y cistas–, mientras que en otros puntos parece que

194 J. M. Edeso, I. Goikoetxea, A. Lopetegi, E. Arévalo, Í. Orue, L. M. Zaldua y J. A. Mujika / Contribution to the study...


1. Introduction1

The first references to Pyrenean funerary stone circles date back to 1710, where a circle of stones was cited as a burial place or grave when the border between Baztan and Maia was reviewed, in the area of Luruko Zokoa close to a landmark (Ondarra, 1975). However, it was not until the first decade of the 20th century that an interest in these monu-ments arose among the pioneers of archaeology. These Pyrenean stone circles, also known as Pyre-nean cromlech, are known as baratze –Mairubaratze, Baratzarreta, Jentilbaratza, etc.– in Basque, which is a term associated with megaliths. The first archaeo-logical interventions were conducted at that time: e. g. in 1909, P. M. Soraluce cited the Oianleku, Arritxulangaña, Errenga and Egiar (Oiartzun) com-plexes; in 1912, Soraluce excavated in Egiar with T. Aranzadi; in 1914, R. Gombault identified and excavated 2 monuments from a cromlech complex in Okabe (Lower Navarra). Subsequently, the dis-covery of this type of structure became common in both sides of the Pyrenees, with notable studies of this phenomenon by Blot, Peñalver and Vegas.

2. Pyrenean Stone Circles (Baratze, Cromlech): Characteristics and Typology

Cromlechs are circular, small-diameter funerary structures that enclose a deposit of incinerated

1 The fieldwork conducted in the Ondarre cromlech was subsidised by the county council of Gipuzkoako Foru Al-dundia. This study was developed within the framework of the Project har2011-26956 (Ministry of Science and Com-petitiveness, of the Spanish Government) and the Research Group of the Basque University System it-622-13 (Basque Government).

human remains in the centre. Cromlechs are cons-tructed from slabs or blocks of stone collected from the surrounding area. The circle of stones can consist of isolated standing stones, which is more common, or a small wall –Meatse e–. The diameter of most cromlechs ranges from 4 to 7 m, but some may be as large as 17 –the Jatsagune Cromlech–, 21 –Azpegiko Lepoa– or 22 m –Indu-riaga–. The standing stones also have small dimen-sions and typically do not rise above the terrain by more than 30-40 cm. Occasionally, one or more standing stones may be more prominent than the rest, reaching over 1 m high –Mulisko Gaina, Eteneta, Ondarre i and iii, etc.–, but they do not appear to follow a specific objective, such as their location, orientation, etc., which varies among the monuments.

The human remain deposits typically only con-sist of small human parts deposited in the centre of the structure and generally belong to adults. In Oianleku, there were approximately 500 bone frag-ments and 1,500 g with all anatomical parts repre-sented in Millagate iv. However, some cromlechs do not contain remains: Mulisko Gaina, Egiar, etc. Occasionally, the remains are deposited directly on the ground –Errozate–, under a pile of blocks –Okabe vi–, in a small cist –Mehatze v–, under a slab, etc. Notably, the circle occasionally encloses a central funerary deposit that is also covered by a burial mound of soil or small rocks, as occurs for the burial mound cromlechs of Pittarre, Bixustia, Ondarre i and ii, etc. Where the remains at these cromlechs were incinerated is unknown, but it did not occur within the structure.

Many cromlechs are isolated –337 cases–, fo-llowed by complexes of 2 –69–, 3 –43– or up to 26 such as Ilarrita –Okabe–.

se localizan en zonas de montaña no ocupadas con anterioridad de forma más o menos continua por grupos ganaderos. El descubrimiento de los círculos pirenaicos en Ondarre y Beaskin (Sierra de Aralar), fuera de la zona nuclear, y en un espacio recurrentemente explotado desde el Neolítico, como lo atestigua la presencia de monumentos funerarios de inhumación –dólmenes y cistas–, plantea nuevas cuestiones sobre los límites de su distribución, así como sobre las razones de la distinta densidad de las evidencias de dicho ritual en algu-nas áreas de la zona nuclear. Por ello, se proponen diferentes hipótesis explicativas, adaptadas a las distintas circunstancias, en función de las litologías, historia, etc.

Palabras clave: Crómlech; Aralar; Bronce final; Edad del Hierro; incineración; distribución.


J. M. Edeso, I. Goikoetxea, A. Lopetegi, E. Arévalo, Í. Orue, L. M. Zaldua y J. A. Mujika / Contribution to the study... 195

Occasionally, in the same area, burial mound structures are documented with identical func-tions and chronologies but without the stone cir-cle: Zuhamendi iii, Apatesaro 4, 5 and 6, Biskarzu and Ahiga.

The remains of the material culture directly as-sociated with funerary deposits are scarce, and it is not always possible to establish a direct relationship with the burial. Consistent with Blot and Peñalver, the following materials have offered the greatest as-sociations: some Iron Age ceramic fragments in the cromlechs of Oianleku Ipar, Apatesaro Hego, Bixus-tia and Accaüs; a ring and bronze button in Oian-leku Ipar; an iron spearhead in Errozate and Zaho; and a glass ring fragment in Jatsagune.

Cromlech origins remain unknown. However, because they are located in mountain areas and their architecture –despite the personality and originality

of some monuments– has elements that allude to prior burial architecture –dolmens and cists–, Ba-randiarán (1950) proposed an evolution: there are dolmens that have an ‘espil’ or stone circumference similar to a ‘baratzak’ or small Pyrenean stone cir-cles. Cromlechs are possible dolmenic survivors in an era when the custom of incinerating bodies was introduced and no megalithic chamber had to be constructed. Thus, with the disappearance of the dolmen, some of its elements, such as the ‘espil’ or stone circle, survived.

3. Chronology

Twenty-six funerary monuments have been da-ted using carbon radiation (Blot and Raballand, 1995; Peñalver, 2005) (Fig. 1). Many are typically

Dolmen/Cist Labor. Age bp Cal bc (%68,2)El Sotillo Beta.-299308 2740 + 30 930/820El Sotillo Beta.-299303 3120 + 30 1440/1370; 1340/1320El Sotillo Beta.-299307 3160 + 30 1500/1400La Chabola Beta.-288936 3280 + 40 1650/1460Etxegarate 14P-1.2 GrA-24204 2715 + 45 900/820Etxegarate 14M-3.8 Ua-37367 3070 + 30 1395/1310Urdanarre N. 1 Gif. 9144 2990 + 50 1312/1146

Fig. 1. Dates of the latest burial phase in distinct dolmens and cists.

dated throughout the first millennium B. C. Tho-se dates, which can be considered too old, might have resulted from dating based on carbon from old trees. In this context, we want to note that there are various dolmens that have dates suggesting re-cent burials (Fernández Eraso and Mujika, 2013; Mujika, 2007-2009), which nearly coincides with the beginning of most incinerations. All of these dates were obtained using ams, and specific indivi-duals have been dated in the burial grounds of the El Sotilllo and La Chabola de la Hechicera dolmen corridors (Rioja Alavesa) or the simple dolmen of Etxegarate (Gipuzkoa). Urdanarre n. 1 (Lower Na-varra) was constructed during the Early Bronze Age (Fig. 2), reused for other burials towards the end of the Bronze Age and similarly reused to deposit

incinerations. The carbon accompanying the inci-nerated bones was dated to the Middle Ages (520 ± 60 bp) (Blot, 1993).

However, the results that most distort the da-ting in Fig. 1 are those that indicate the reuse or construction of some of these monuments during the Middle Ages because of the possible survival of these rituals in small, Christianised populations from the Pyrenean region. This hypothesis is con-solidated by the typology of some metallic objects observed in some burial mounds –in coarse form without carbon dating–. For example, 2 fragments of crossbow tips, dated between the 10th and 14th centuries ad because of their typology, were excava-ted in the Sohandi 2 burial mound; a scythe blade with a wide chronology, from the La Tène culture



to the Middle Ages, was excavated in the Sohandi 6 burial mound; and ceramics were excavated from the Sohandi 5 circle. Additionally, in the centre of the Ahiga burial mound, which has a 24 m diameter and no structure whatsoever, a homogenous layer of charcoal was observed that contained a bronze coin, which in the opinion of J. L. Tobie, was an “Antoni-nianus coarsely imitated, probably from the iii cen-tury ad”. The coals were dated to the Middle Ages using C14, so the coin perhaps was present because it was still ongoing in the Middle Ages (Blot, 1981).

The question of the survival of this ritual has not been definitively answered. Contamination cannot be excluded in some cases, e.g., by uncontrolled

charcoals that are not di-rectly related to the original use of the monument. If possible, it would be desira-ble to obtain a direct dating of the incinerated human remains. For many burial mounds, it is difficult to accept their funerary nature due to the absence of char-coals or incinerated bones, and the presence of metallic objects could be attributed to other causes.

4. Cromlech regional distribution, site and geology

In a synthetic study of cromlechs (Peñalver, 2005), 1,452 monuments were counted and distributed in the following territo-ries: 35% in Navarre, 15% in Lower Navarre, 20% in Béarn, 12% in Huesca and Gipuzkoa –to the west of the Oria and Leizaran ri-vers– and 5% in Lapurdi. A few monuments have also

been located in Álava and Biscay, some without ex-cavations and others without remains, which cast numerous doubts regarding their real nature, func-tionality and chronology (Fig. 3).

For the selected site, it is notable that out of 300 complexes analysed, approximately 35% were located on hills, 24% on small hills, 20% on slope landings, 12% on flatlands, 8% on hillsides and <1% in hollows.

However, geographical distribution has main-tained the most interest because this funerary ritual is linked to the Western and Central Pyrenees and does not appear to have extended beyond its closest surroundings. Regarding this information, Peñalver

Site Labor. Age bp Cal bc (%68,2)Meatse 8 Gif. 9573 2960 ± 50 1185 ± 81 Apatesaro 1 Gif. 5728 2780 ± 90 971 ± 107 Ondarre I-12J-5 Beta.-363982 2740 ± 30 881 ± 32 Ondarre II-21E Beta.-387839 2800 ± 30 957 ± 35 Apatesaro 5 Gif. 6988 2740 ± 60 906 ± 62 Mehatze 5 Gif. 4470 2730 ± 100 925 ± 100 Millagate 5 Gif. 7559 2730 ± 60 898 ± 59 Meatse 11 Gif. 10284 2705 ± 75 889 ± 66 Mendiluze CSIC-694 2700 ± 60 872 ± 47Errozate 2 Gif. 3741 2680 ± 100 848 ± 114 Apatesaro 4 Gif. 6031 2670 ± 90 839 ± 93 Hegieder 7 Gif. 9371 2650±50 839 ± 38 Errozate 4 Gif. 4185 2640 ± 100 758 ± 145 Zaho 2 Gif. 6343 2640 ± 90 762 ± 133 Mulisko Gaina I-14.100 2630 ± 90 748 ± 137 Bixustia Gif. 3743 2600 ± 100 707 ± 142 Apatesaro 1 bis Gif. 5729 2590 ± 90 694 ± 129 Meatse 2 Ly. 881 2380 ± 130 509 ± 194 Okabe 6 Gif. 4186 2370 ± 100 530 ± 162 Errozate 3 Gif. 4184 2330 ± 100 452 ± 184 Pittare Gif. 4469 2240 ± 90 285 ± 98 Millagate 4 Gif. 7306 2120 ± 60 189 ± 112 Sohandi V Bx 475 T.L. 800 ± 210 ThermoluminiscenceAhiga Gif. 5022 1000 ± 80 d.C. 1043 ± 89 Cal adBiskarzu Gif. 4183 1100 ± 90 d.C. 907 ± 98 Cal adSohandi II s. x-xiv d.C. Metallic tipologyUrdanarre N. 1 Gif. 9030 520 ± 60 1379 ± 51 Cal ad

Fig. 2. Pyrenean circle (baratze), burial mound cromlechs and incineration burial mound dates from the Western Pyrenees (Source: Blot and Peñalver) calibrated with CalPal_2007_hulu (http://www.calpal-online.de).



(2008) has identified several notable questions. For example, what type of relations does a population that constructs this type of funerary architectu-re (cromlechs, burial mound cromlechs and burial mounds) have with groups where these structures are unknown but cists are known –e.g., Piñuelas/La Hoya, Álava–, burial mounds of different characte-ristics in El Castillo –Castejón, Navarra–, etc.? Po-pulation centres that used cromlechs are unknown, but shepherds from known population groups have been excluded (Peñalver and San José, 2011). For researchers, the sudden appearance of cromlechs west of the Leizaran and Oria rivers and their uni-form generalisation to the east can be related to the border between the Vascones territory and the Var-duli in the west.

The unexpected discovery of three funerary stone circles in Ondarre it leads as to pose the following question: could the nearly complete absence of this type of structure west of the Leizaran/Oria border be a result of other causes –conservation difficul-ties because of lithological factors and their current

identification, population history in each mountain range, etc.– and is our image of cromlech distribu-tion thus slightly distorted, or should it be more nuanced? To approach this matter, we attempted to analyse the following based on complementary factors: 1. Is there a relationship between the type of lithology and number of cromlechs? and 2. Is the greater or lesser density of funerary monuments –dolmens and cists–, as an indication of prior oc-cupation of the territory throughout the funerary world, inversely related to the presence of crom-lechs? Furthermore, we assessed the characteristics of each mountain chain (length, type of relief), the resources available in each chain, the type of spatial distribution of the distinct types of burials and the relationship between them, etc.

In the absence of a systematic study of cromlech evidence and based on the data from the literatu-re, we can state that many cromlechs are located in schists, slates, sandstone, quartz, etc. Of 1,452 cromlechs or burial mound cromlechs, only 35 have limestone blocks in their construction, and

Fig. 3. A general distribution of cromlechs at their western end with the most recent discoveries and the monuments away from the axis of the Pyrenees: 1. Ondarre, 2. Beaskin (Sierra de Aralar), 3. Mendiluze (Sierra de Entzia), 4-5. Sierra de Urbasa-Andia, 6. Induriaga. This information takes as a base the distribution map of all the Pyrenean circles realized by X. Peñalver (2007).



9 sites have calcareous sandstone from the coastal mountains.

The Pyrenees is a significant mountain range that extends from the Gulf of Leon to the Bay of Biscay, drawing an arc –e-w– with northern concavity. The western section of this range is the Basque Pyrenees and consists of –similar to the rest of the chain– a Hercynian axis (threshold) –formed by old, rigid and metamorphosed rocks– and Mesozoic-Ter-tiary cover bed, which comprises the Pre-Pyrenees subunit –SubPyrenees in France–. From the Oria Valley, the axis disappears, and the Pre-Pyrenees stretch into the surrounding area of Bilbao through the Basque Coastal Mountains.

In the study zone, the axis is compartmentali-sed –has a z form– into 5 massifs that are separated

by Mesozoic-Tertiary outcrops. The Cinco Villas, Ursuia-Baigura or Laburdi, Aldudes-Quinto Real, Mendibeltza and Iguntza massifs stand from west to east. Despite having a similar origin and age, the massifs present lithological differences that can as-sign them to one of the two following categories:

a. Oriental dominion: constituted by the Iguntza, Mendibeltza and Aldudes-Quinto Real massifs and by the southern fringe of Ursuia-Baigu-ra. Quartzites, black schists with graptolites, sandstone, dolomites, blue limestone, sandy schists and ferruginous sandstone are the do-minant forms, with ages ranging from the Or-dovician to the Frasnian (Heddebaut, 1975; Rat and Feuillée, 1971) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. The distribution of cromlech complexes in the southern Pyrenees: 1) Mendizorrotz; 2) Jaizkibel; 3) Complexes of crom-lech in the Cinco Villas massif; 4) Complexes in the Baztan area; 5) Complexes of Urkulu-Irati; 6) Ondarre (Sierra de Aralar); 7) Beaskin (Sierra de Aralar); 8) Induriaga (Aoiz-Longuida); 9-10) Sierra de Andia-Urbasa; 11) Mendiluze (Sierra de Entzia); 12) Belagua.



b. Occidental dominion: consisting of the Cinco Villas and Laburdi massifs. This landscape has an obvious predominance of bluish grey and black schists with possible inter-bedded con-glomerates (pudingas) and quartzite, lyddite and limestone lenses (Lesaka, Aranaz, Artiku- tza). The granite stock of Peñas de Aia, which consists of granite, granodiorite, quarzodiorite and diorite, can be observed in the Cinco Vi-llas massif (Campos, 1979) (Fig. 4).

The Mesozoic-Tertiary cover bed presents grea-ter lithological diversity, although the areas closest to the axis have a predominance of limestone, dolo-mite, marl, marly limestone, sandstone, clay –with and without evaporites–, lutite, conglomerate and turbidite (Fig. 4).

The distribution of megalithic monuments –cromlechs– in the Pyrenean landscape is greatly asymmetrical, and many can be observed in the above-mentioned Palaeozoic Hercynian massifs. By contrast, in areas of sedimentary cover, these mo-numents are scarce, with a few sites in the calca-reous sandstone of the coastal mountains of Jaizki-bel –5 dolmens and 6 cromlechs– and Mendizorrotz –5 dolmens and 3 cromlechs–, as well as in the li-mestone of the Aralar Mountains –more than 50 dolmens and 2 cromlechs–, Andia –6 cromlechs and 12 dolmens– and Urbasa –1 cromlech and 23 dol-mens–, in addition to the possible ruined dolmens inventoried as burial mounds in the last two areas (Barrero et al., 2005).

It is notable that there is an absence of these monuments in the port area of Larrau-Belagua-Isa-ba-Piedra de San Martín-Añelarra-Mesa de los Tres Reyes-Zuriza. Here, there are no Palaeozoic mate-rials, although carbonated sediments –nearly pure limestone, olistostrome and dolomite– occur with turbidite, gaps, marl, clay and sandstone. The har-dest lithologies comprise the dominant reliefs, whe-reas the softest lithologies present the typical shape of valleys, depressions and pails (Fig. 4).

A progressive decrease in the number of cromlechs can be observed from the area around Valcarlos towards the east (Fig. 4, between points 5 and 9):

2 dolmens, 3 non-excavated burial mounds and 15 cromlechs have been observed in Lauriña-Mendi-motz; 7 dolmens, 4 non-excavated burial mounds and 50 cromlechs in Urkulu-Irati; 11 dolmens, 3 non-excavated burial mounds and 1 cromlech in the Sierra de Abodi; 2 burial mounds in Larrau-Otso-gorrigaña; and 10 dolmens, 4 non-excavated bu-rial mounds whose real nature is unknown and 1 cromlech in the Belagua area in the north-eastern extreme (Barrero et al., 2005).

A second empty space –with a smaller exten-sion– can be observed in the Baztan-Lekunbe-rri-Belate area. Here, Permian-Triassic materials can be observed, with Jurassic and Cretaceous se-diments. Additionally, limestone and dolomite oc-cupy a significant area, although in this case, the modelled monocline reliefs consisting of sandstone and conglomerates from the end of the Palaeozoic and beginning of the Mesozoic cannot be over-looked (Fig. 4). However, scarce evidence has been observed. The location of the areas’ greatest length at lower altitudes could be related to this fact in some manner.

5. The burial-mound Cromlechs of Ondarre (Sierra de Aralar)

These funerary monuments are located in the central-western sector of the Sierra de Aralar in a closed depression to the south of a small mountain chain with a general n-s direction (Argarbi-Pi-koketa). The Jurassic periclinal closure of the Ara-lar anticline has a complicated litho-stratigraphic sequence with various types of limestone, marl, calcareous sandstone, siliceous and micro-conglo-meratic sandstone, conglomerates and lutite. The depression is partially in-filled (at least 14 m) by fluvial-torrential materials with a predominance of sand, clay and silt, but gravel and small and me-dium edges can also be observed. Isolated limestone blocks and slope deposits can only be observed at the lateral borders.

This area has provided vestiges of a different typo-logy and chronology –industry from the Palaeolithic



and post-Palaeolithic, settlements and funerary archi-tecture–, which indicate the recurrent and systema-tic occupation of the same space from the Neolithic period to present day, most likely with the identical

objective during any period, i.e., exploiting the avai-lable resources for raising livestock in this region of the Sierra de Aralar (Fig. 5). One reason to construct this architecture, in addition to the funerary one,

Fig. 5. The Ondarre area in the Sierra de Aralar: industrial remains from the Middle and Late Palaeolithic, settlements (from the Bronze Age –Esnaurreta–, Roman cabins of Argarbi, medieval cabins in Esnaurreta, etc.) and funerary architecture (dolmen of Argarbi, cists and cromlechs of Ondarre).



could be to help order the management of available resources in the area.

The depression in which the cromlechs are loca-ted consists of fluvial sediments deposited by the torrential stream or course, which is incorporated at the low point of Ondarre. Isolated blocks of li-mestone outcrop and slope deposits can only be observed at the lateral edges. In the central area of the depression, the relief is relatively plain with some irregularities –canals, hilly terrain–. Taking advantage of the fact that one of these points was distinct from the rest of the surrounding terrain, a burial-mound cromlech was constructed. The cusps of a pair of blocks occur beside the burial

mound cromlech, approximately tangential; after careful study, this configuration led us to belie-ve that this monument was a practically complete burial-mound cromlech or stone circle that remains covered by sediment.

The burial-mound of Ondarre i was approximate-ly 7 m in diameter and 45 cm high. The mound was surrounded by approximately 30 standing stones, of which only 2 were initially visible. All standing stones were made from limestone, except for 3, which were made from highly degraded sandstone and calcarenite. Three standing stones were 1.20 m high, another dozen were 75 cm, but the rest were diminutive because of fragmentation and changes

Fig. 6. The Ondarre cromlech at the initial excavation.



caused by crypto-corrosion (Fig. 6) (Edeso et al., 2014; Arévalo et al., 2015).

In the probing conducted in the central area of the burial mound, we observed a wide carbon stain set apart from a small bucket-like depression of approximately 30 cm. The depression contained charred human bones, including fragments of epi-physes, the skull, ribs, etc. The remains correspon-ded to at least 2 infants, one of whom was older than the other.

To specify the chronology of the remains, a frag-ment of pericarp hazelnut –Corylus avellana– was dated: 2740 ± 30 bc.

During the excavation, no objects were observed in the central area where the funerary deposit was documented, although some loose elements were recovered in the standing stones’ sediment from the burial mound circle or periphery. Poverty is a com-mon feature in this type of funerary monument.

On the other hand, the explorations carried out in the burial-mound cromlech of Ondarre ii and in the cromlech of Ondarre iii confirmed the high de-gree of alteration of the limestones covered by the sediment, as well as the disappearance of the majo-rity of the standing stones for reasons, anthropic or natural, that we cannot settle on.

6. Conclusions

The discovery and analysis of the Ondarre and Beaskin stone circles or cromlechs –baratze– in Sie-rra de Aralar leads us to propose that the distribu-tion of this funerary incineration ritual is broader than was frequently considered for this time, whose western limit on the Atlantic watershed was loca-ted in the Leizaran/Oria rivers. In the Mediterra-nean chain watershed, 3 non-excavated cromlech complexes were observed in the limestone litho-logy of the Andia-Urbasa mountain chain, which runs parallel to the Sierra de Aralar. The cromlech of Mendiluze (Sierra de Entzia), excavated by J. I. Vegas (1985, 2001 and 2002), which yielded the incinerated remains of one individual is another one and the recent discoveries of the Induriaga

cromlechs (Aoiz-Longuida) are also notably away from the axis of the Pyrenees. The ones known in the surroundings of the Yesa reservoir should be ad-ded to this list. Currently, it is impossible to specify the real limits of these complexes because new dis-coveries will most likely be made due west. Diffe-rent factors will make it difficult to define the real limits of these complexes, including the following interpretations and compressions of the causes for variable densities of cromlechs in various areas of the Western Pyrenees:

1. Conservation problems. Cromlechs are sim-ple funerary structures with small dimensions; thus, their disappearance from mountain chains at lower altitudes can be explained by agricultural, livestock breeding and forestry activities developed in histo-rical times.

2. The different typologies of the monuments and the dimensions and formats of available rocks (block, slab) have influenced cromlech conservation and current perceptibility to a variable degree. In lithologies that are easier to alter –limestone, calca-reous sandstone in Jaizkibel, Igeldo–, the presence of cromlechs is minimal –3%–, perhaps because of the identification difficulties encountered by re-searchers. It is notable that no sites are known in some lithologies, such as basalt and ophite. Litho-logy could be an important factor in understan-ding the peculiar distribution of cromlechs (Edeso and Mujika, 2011), as was also observed in the case of funerary rituals from the Middle Neolithic Period-Bronze Age from the Gipuzkoa area (Fig. 7).

Other post-construction processes –hidden by sediment, as for Ondarre, reuse, alteration and frag-mentation of standing stones and their dispersion– also complicate cromlech visibility and recognition, which makes it necessary to intensify prospecting activities in areas without cromlechs or with a small number of sites to understand the true cause of their scarcity in these zones.

3. Another notable factor is the specific history or evolution of the population of each mountain



chain. A diachronic land occupation appears to have been established, which could have been conditio-ned by the surface length of the mountain chain and different bioclimatic factors due to unknown historical circumstances and the necessary manage-ment of available resources in each chain.

In some of the mountain chains located in the classic cromlech area, in which the number of bu-rial funerary monuments –dolmens and cists– was significant, few or zero cromlechs were observed. In addition to the above-mentioned cases of Abo-di and Belagua, the Igoin-Akola and Landarbaso (Gipuzkoa) mountain chains with Palaeozoic li-thologies had 15 dolmens and no cromlechs (Fig. 7). By contrast, for other mountain chains, the abundance of cromlechs contrasted with fewer dol-mens or cists, as in the case of east Gipuzkoa (Fig. 7) and in borderlands of Navarra –1 dolmen, 5 non-excavated burial mounds and 70 cromlechs in Arano-Goizueta and 5 dolmens, 10 non-excavated burial mounds and approximately 150 cromlechs in Artikutza– or the previously mentioned cases

–Lauriña-Mendimotz; Urkulu-Irati–, etc. In other areas, the relationship was apparently more balan-ced, but we must analyse the spatial distribution of cromlechs in detail for each of the mountain chains.

This unequal distribution leads us to propo-se the following questions: does the abundance of cromlechs –or the absence of previous funerary mo-numents– indicate primary colonisation by pastoral nomadic groups of unpopulated or marginal areas beginning in the Late Bronze Age? Or, by contrast, would a predominance of dolmens and cists indi-cate a more intensive and continuous occupation of the mountain chains between the Middle Neo-lithic period and the Bronze Age and their scarcity indicate subsequent abandonment or less pressu-re? However, it is possible that in these mountain chains, the prior funerary monuments continued to conserve their function as territorial markers, and for this reason, could possibly indicate that there was little or no need to construct a cromlech or other type of funerary monument visible in the

Fig. 7. The distribution of various types of funerary manifestations (burial caves, dolmens and cromlechs) in Gipuzkoa.



landscape to claim or manage territory. In these ca-ses, the ritual could possibly be similar but without a complex visible structure.

However, burial and incineration monuments do not have to be rivals. In this context, a similar question was proposed for the relationships be-tween dolmens, dolmens and burial caves and dol-mens and cists. Among the latter relationships, we observed the proximities between the monuments –Urrezuloko Armurea and Atxurbi, Jentillarri and Arraztarangaña, etc.–; in some cases, the proximi-ties were nearly in contact –for example, Praalata and Aitxu–, as if the more recent burial were to confirm the importance of the older one, thus es-tablishing continuity between groups of humans. A similar situation appears to have occurred at Azpegi –the Urkulu-Irati area– and in the Mulisko-Gaina complex –Hernani-Urnieta– excavated by Peñalver (1987), in which there was a double cist, which we attributed to the Early Bronze Age because of other regional parallels –Langagorri, Ondarre, Ai-txu, Atxurbi, Arraztarangaña etc.–. This cist was su-rrounded by at least 4 cromlechs, which appeared to validate its role as a territorial marker, or in Ur-danarre n. 1 (Blot, 1993), in which the cist contai-ned ceramics with roped decorations attributed to the Early Bronze Age, bone remains from a burial dated to the Late Bronze Age and the remains of at least one incineration.

4. Ondarre’s surroundings are an obvious exam-ple of recurrent occupation of the area (Agirre et al., 2010), indicated by the successive and juxtapo-sed construction of different funerary monuments, which appear to play a role in the management of territory. There are at least 3 types of funerary struc-tures –Argarbi dolmen, and a cist, three cromlech or funerary stone circles in Ondarre– distributed across only 400 m, and in the identical area, other remnants of distinct chronologies have been un-covered –Roman cabins in Argarbi, a Bronze Age settlement and a settlement from the Early Middle Ages in Esnaurreta and other non-probed structu-res–, which indicate the recurrent exploitation of the area and rearrangement of the space through

the establishment of new landmarks, each of which would play a functional role for the groups occup-ying the area, the availability of resources, etc.

Bibliography

Agirre, J.; Moraza, A. and Mujika, J. A. (2010): “Los elementos físicos como reivindicación del territorio y de sus frutos en los espacios de montaña”. En Actas Congreso Internacional sobre el Megalitismo y otras ma-nifestaciones funerarias contemporáneas en su contexto social, económico y cultural (Beasain-Idiazabal, 2007). Munibe supl., 32. Guipúzcoa, pp. 286-314.

Altuna, J. and Areso, P. (1977): “Excavaciones en los cromlech de Oyanleku (Oyarzun, Guipúzcoa)”, Mu-nibe, 29 (1-2), pp. 65-76.

Arévalo, E.; Edeso, J. M.; Goikoetxea, I., Lopetegi, A.; Mujika, J. A.; Orue, I. and Zaldua, L. M. (2015): “Sierra de Aralar”, Arkeoikuska 2014, pp. 373-377.

Barandiarán, J. M. (1950): “La Prehistoria en el Pi-rineo Vasco, estado actual de su estudio“. En Actas 1.er Congreso Internacional de Estudios Pirenaicos. San Sebastián, vol. 4, pp. 209-218.

Barrero, B.; Gaztelu, I.; Martínez, A.; Mercader, G.; Millán, L.; Tamayo, M. and Txintxurreta, I. (2005): “Catálogo de monumentos megalíticos en Navarra”, Cuadernos de Arqueología Universidad de Navarra, 13, pp. 11-86.

Blot, J. (1982): “Les cercles de pierre ou ‘cromlechs’ en Pays Basque de France”, Zainak. Cuadernos de Antro-pología-Etnografía, 1, pp. 85-122.

Blot, J. (1991): “Le Tumulus-Cromlech de Millagate v”, Munibe, 43, pp. 181-189.

Blot, J. (1993): “Le Tumulus Urdanarre Nord 1 (Compte rendu de fouilles 1991)”, Munibe, 45, pp. 143-151.

Blot, J. and Raballand, C. (1995): “Contribution à l’étude de pierres en Pays Basque de France”, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 92 (4), pp. 525-548.

Campos, J. (1979): “Estudio geológico del Pirineo Vasco al w del río Bidasoa”, Munibe, 31 (1-2), pp. 3-139.

Edeso, J. M.; Goikoetxea, I.; Lopetegi, A. and Muji-ka, J. A. (2014): “Sierra de Aralar: Ondarre e Igara- tza”, Arkeoikuska 2013, pp. 328-331.

Edeso, J. M. and Mujika, J. A. (2012): “Megalitismo y cuevas sepulcrales en Gipuzkoa. Distribución espacial y características generales”, Isturitz, 12, pp. 83-114.



Fernández Eraso, J. and Mujika, J. A. (2013): “La esta-ción megalítica de la Rioja Alavesa: cronología, oríge-nes y ciclos de utilización”, Zephyrus, lxxi, pp. 89-106.

Heddebaut, C. (1975): “Études géologiques dans les massifs paléozoïques basques. Géologie général”, Bu-lletin du Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières, 2ème séries, Sect. iv (i), pp. 5-30. Paris.

Mujika, J. A. (2007-2009): “Cronología y secuencias de uso funerario en el megalitismo del Pirineo Occiden-tal”, Illunzar, 7, pp. 13-38.

Mujika, J. A. and Edeso, J. M. (2012): Lehenengo neka-zari-abeltzainak Gipuzkoan Neolitikotik Burdin Aro-ra/Los primeros agricultores y ganaderos en Gipuzkoa del Neolítico a la Edad del Hierro. Arkeologia 0.3. San Sebastián: Diput. Foral de Gipuzkoa.

Ondarra, F. (1975): “Nuevos monumentos megalíticos en Baztán y zonas colindantes”, Príncipe de Viana, 138-139, pp. 5-46.

Peñalver, X. (2007): “Los crómlech pirenaicos”, Bols-kan, 22, pp. 1-349.

Peñalver, X. (2008): La Edad del Hierro. Los vascones y sus vecinos el último milenio anterior a nuestra Era. San Sebastián: Ed. Txertoa.

Peñalver, X. and San José, S. (2011): Burdin Aroa Gi-puzkoan. La Edad de Hierro en Gipuzkoa. Arkeologia 0.3. San Sebastián: Diput. Foral de Gipuzkoa.

Peñalver-Iribarren, X. (1987): “Mulisko Gaineko in-dusketa arkeologikoa. Urnieta-Hernani (Gipuzkoa)”, Munibe, 39, pp. 93-120.

Rat, P. and Feuillée, P. (1971): “Structures et Paléo- géographies pyrénéo-cantabriques”. In Histoire struc-turale du Golfe de Gascogne. Publ. de l’Institute Franç. du Petrol., 2. Paris, pp. 1-48.

Vegas, J. I. (1985): “Círculo de piedras de Mendiluce (Sierra de Encia, Álava)”, Arkeoikuska, 84, pp. 8-20.

Vegas, J. I. (1988): “Revisión del fenómeno de los cróm- lech vascos”, Estudios de Arqueología Alavesa, 16, pp. 235-443.

Vegas, J. I. (2001): “El crómlech de Mendiluce”, Eusko-news&Media, 121.

(http://www.euskonews.com/0121zbk/gaia12102es.html [acceso 16-2-2016]).

Vegas, J. I. (2002): “Cromlech de Mendiluce”, Musar 12, pp. 76-80. Enza s.c.

Documents

Contribución al estudio de la distribución geográfica de ...gredos.usal.es/.../1/Contribucion_al_estudio_de_la_distribuci.pdf · Contribución al estudio de la distribución geográfica